i^K 


481 

.■v*Slc      -vHlTNEY 


CONTRIBUTIONS    FROM 
THE    ATHARVA-VEDA 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


I! 

'J 


V>vV 


CONTRIBUTIONS 


THE    ATHARVA-VEDA 


TO    THE    THEORY    OF 


SANSKRIT    VEIBAL    ACCENT 


WILLIAM  D.  'WHITNEY, 

PEOFESSOB   OF  SANSESIT  IN   TALE   COLLEQE. 

J/7. ///J?,/ 
(From  the  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  Vol.  V,'^1866.) 


'       0 
Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/contributionsfroOOwliit 


i:K 


CONTRIBUTIONS    FROM    THE    ATHARVA-VEDA 


THEORY    OF    SANSKRIT    VERBAL    ACCENT. 


At  a  former  meeting  of  the  Society,  I  had  the  honor  to 
lay  before  it,  in  connection  with  a  review  of  a  late  work 
by  Prof.  Bopp,  of  Berhn,  an  attempt  to  state  in  a  new  and 
improved  form  the  rules  respecting  the  accentuation  of  the 
finite  verb  in  the  Sanskrit  sentence.*  That  such  an  attempt 
was  called  for,  will  be  evident  enough  to  any  one  who  will 
refer  to  the  statement  of  these  rules  which  is  given  in  Ben- 
fey 's  larger  Sanskrit  grammar, f  the  latest  and  most  elaborate 
work  of  its  class,  and  the  only  one  which  professes  to  treat 
the  subject  in  an  exhaustive  manner.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  the  account  of  the  phenomena  of  verbal  accen- 
tuation which  is  there  presented  is  entirely  unsatisfactory, 
or  even  unintelligible;  that  it  is  plainly  wanting  in  true 
method ;  that  it  is  no  orderly  development  from  a  central 
principle,  subordinating  the  more  particular  to  the  more  gen- 
eral, and  giving  each  special  rule  its  due  proportion  in  the 
sum  of  the  whole,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  chaos  of  rules  and 
exceptions,  empirically  stated  and  confusedly  thrown  to- 
gether. That  this  is  so,  is  not  so  much  the  fault  of  Prof. 
Benfey,  as  of  the  Indian  grammarians,  from  whom,  and  not 
from  the  Sanskrit  literature  itself,  he  has  drawn  the  materi- 
als out  of  which  he  has  constructed  his  grammar  :  doubtless 
his  statement  is  the  best  that  could  be  derived  from  such 
sources  ;  its  imperfections  only  prove  that  the  native  gram- 


f  Vollstandige  Grammatik  der  Sanskritsprache,  §  127,  etc. 
*  See  this  Journal,  vol.  v,  p.  21 3,  etc. 

1 


161159 


marians  occupy  with  reference  to  tliis  department  of  gram- 
mar the  same  position  as  tt)  other  departments  also ;  that 
"while  they  are  laborious  and  ingenious  assemblers  and  ar- 
rangers of  particular  facts,  their  shallow  philosophy,  and 
laboriously  unnatural  and  arbitrary  method,  render  them 
utterly  unreliable  guides  for  us  to  a  true  knowledge  of  the 
Sanskrit  language,  since  their  rules  require  to  be  explained, 
and  limited,  and  re-arranged,  by  the  light  of  the  very  facts 
which  the}"  attempt  to  classify  and  account  for.  I  referred, 
at  the  close  of  my  former  remarks  upon  the  subject,  to 
this  untrustworthiness  of  those  who  had  been  our  chief  au- 
thorities with  reference  to  it,  and  expressed  my  opinion,  that 
a  rational  and  exhaustive  theory  of  the  principles  producing 
the  phenomena  of  verbal  accentuation  in  Sanskrit,  could 
only  be  arrived  at  by  a  careful  study  of  the  phenomena 
themselves,  as  laid  before  us  in  the  various  accented  Vedic 
texts.  I  was  then  already  engaged  in  assembling  from  the 
text  of  the  Atharva-Veda  all  the  material  which  could  aid 
in  elucidating  the  matter,  all  the  passages  in  wdiich  the  ac- 
cent was  not  determined  by,  or  in  accordance  with,  the  most 
general  rules  of  accentuation,  and  which  accordingly  sug- 
gested more  special  rules,  or  appeared  to  be  anomalous  and 
exceptional  cases  ;  and  as  I  have  now  completed  the  collec- 
tion, I  take  this  opportunity  of  presenting  it  to  the  Society, 
hoping  that  it  will  be  found  not  without  value  as  a  contribu- 
tion to  the  theory  of  Sanskrit  accent.  So  far  as  was  in  my 
power,  I  have  classified  and  explained  the  facts  collected, 
presenting  them  in  connection  with  the  rules  which  they 
illustrate,  and  have  thus  been  compelled  to  go  over  in  part 
the  same  ground  w^hich  I  formerly  traversed ;  if  of  a  portion 
of  them  I  am  unable  to  give  a  satisfactory  account,  their 
statement  here  will  at  any  rate  tend  to  render  possible  their 
future  explanation,  by  facilitating  their  examination  by  oth- 
ers, and  their  farther  comparison  with  kindred  facts,  to  be 
derived  from  the  other  accented  texts. 

The  first  and  most  general  rule  for  the  accentuation  of  the 
verb  in  the  Sanskrit  sentence  is  this.  In  a  direct  or  inde- 
pendent sentence,  or  clause  of  a  sentence,  the  finite  verb  is 
made  enclitic  upon  any  word  preceding  it  which  is  directly 
connected  with  it  in  construction.  It  matters  not  what  part 
of  the  sentence  that  word  may  be  which  stands  before  the 
verb;  whether  subject  or  predicate,  whether  direct  or  indi- 


rect  object,  or  other  limiting  circumstance,  it  takes  away 
the  accent  from  the  verb  itself.  Take  as  instances  the  fol- 
lowing clauses. 

amhdyo  yanty  ddhvabhih  (i.  4.  1) ;       civd'  bhava  (iii.  28.  3) ; 

rlr4iUHt  5T^  FTFT  HklMH^  4: 

tdt  krnmo  hrdhma  (iii.  30.  4) ;    tdsya  bhdjayate  'hd  nah  (i.  5.  2) ; 

abhi  krandaprd trdsaya (v.  21.4);  d'  viro  ztrajdyatdm  (iii.  23. 2). 
Even  if  other  unaccented  words  intervene  between  the 
accent  and  the  verb,  the  effect  upon  the  latter  remains  the 
same :  thus 

mddhund  tvd  khandmasi  (i.  34. 1) ;  ndmas  te  rudra  krnmah 
(xi.  2.  3). 

It  is  well  known  that,  by  the  operation  of  this  rule,  the 
Sanskrit  verb  is  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  deprived  of 
its  accent.  Thus  verbal  forms  of  the  root  ^,  kar^  which 
are  perhaps  found  in  the  Yedic  texts  with  greater  frequency 
and  in  greater  variety  than  those  of  any  other  root,  occur 
in  the  Atharvan  four  hundred  and  ninety-eight  times ;  but 
only  one  hundred  and  forty-six  times  do  they  maintain  their 
own  proper  accent;  in  the  remaining  three  hundred  and 
fifty-two  instances  they  are  accentless  or  enclitic. 

If,  however,  the  verb  stands  at  the  head  of  the  sentence,  it 
cannot,  of  course,  be  encliticized,  but  retains  its  accent ;  thus 

^'i  m  dirjMiHiH^  ^f^TTH  3^Tfrrrt  ^n^ 

dargdyamdydtudhd'ndn{\Y. 20.  6);  vrccd'mi  (^dtr'dndm  bdhU'n 
(vi.  65.  2). 

This  is  in  accordance  with  Greek  usage,  by  which  a  word 
usually  enclitic  remains  orthotone,  if  it  stands  first  in  the 
sentence.  As  the  Sanskrit  has  no  proclitics,  its  seutcuces 
always  commence  with  an  accented  word, 


As  regards  the  -vvorkiug  of  this  rule,  it  is  to  be  remarked 
that  ill  poetry  each  pdda,  or  iiitimate  subdivision  of  the  verse, 
is  treated  as  if  it  constituted  an  independent  clause,  and  a 
verb  standing  at  the  head  of  it  remains  orthotone,  even 
though  preceded  in  another  pdda  by  words  directly  depend- 
ent upon  it.     The  following  is  an  instance : 

dhdtiir  devdsya  satyena  hrnomi  pativedanam  (ii,  36,  2). 

Other  cases  are  i.  8.  3,'  4 ;  17. 1 ;  31, 1.  ii.  9. 4,  6.  iii.  10. 
12.     V.  22.  12,    vi.  54.  2 ;  60.  3,  etc.,  etc. 

But  farther,  if  the  verb  is  preceded  in  the  sentence  or  pdda 
only  by  a  vocative,  it  retains  its  accent.  The  reason  of  this 
is  sufiiciently  obvious.  The  vocative  really  forms  no  part  of 
the  sentence  to  which  it  is  attached ;  it  is  neither  subject 
nor  predicate ;  it  is  a  mere  excrescence,  a  parenthesis  ;  it  is 
not,  then,  so  connected  in  construction  with  the  verb  that 
the  latter  can  be  made  dependent  upon  it  with  respect  to 
accent.     We  have,  accordingly, 

si'te  vdnddmahe  tvd  (iii,  17.  8) ;  vigve  devd  vdsavo  rdhshate  ^mdm 
(i.  30.  1).  It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  more  of  the  numerous 
illustrations  of  this  principle  which  are  to  be  found  in  the 
text. 

By  the  first  rule,  as  stated,  the  verb  is  made  dependent 
for  accent  only  upon  some  word  construed  directly  with  it. 
If,  then,  a  sentence  be  composed  of  several  clauses,  a  verb 
standing  at  the  head  of  any  one  of  them  will  keep  its  own 
accent.     Instances  are 

pd'tu  grd'vd  pd'tu  somo  no  dhhasah  (vi.  3.  2) ; 
dhd  drdtim  dvidah  syondm,  (ii.  10.  7) ; 

f%wfe4#r  qi^i^^ 

vicvakarman  ndmas  te  pdhy  dsmd'n  (equal  to  pdhi  asmd'n) 
{\i  35.  4). 


And  even  if  the  object  of  the  verb  precede  the  latter,  it 
does  not  take  away  its  accent,  provided  it  be  also  at  the  same 
time  the  object  of  another  verb :  thus 

ydtudhd'nasya  somapa  jahi  prajd'in  ndyasva  ca  (i.  8.  3). 
Here  the  first  verb  is  accented' as  standing  at  the  head  of  the 
pdda^  the  second  as  commencing  a  new  clause  ;  the  division 
of  the  sentence  being  made  between  the  common  object  and 
the  latter  of  the  two  verbs.  A  similar  case,  in  which  a  com- 
mon subject  is  regarded  as  belonging  especially  to  the  former 
of  two  verbs,  and  the  latter  one  is  accented,  is 

^rnffrT  5t:  gw  ^v■^  frt 

grrwtu  nah  subhdgd  bodhatu  tmdnd  (vii.  48.  1). 

It  is  not  very  often  that  a  division  of  the  sentence  into 
separate  clauses  thus  takes  place  within  the  pdda,  and  that 
at  the  same  time  a  verb  happens  to  stand  first  after  the  divis- 
ion. And  as  the  phenomenon  is  an  interesting  one,  as  indi- 
cating the  necessity  that  the  word  to  whose  accent  that  of 
the  verb  is  subordinated  must  be  immediately  connected  in 
construction  with  the  latter,  and  not  a  part  of  any  other 
clause,  I  give  here  a  complete  list  of  all  the  instances  of  its 
occurrence  found  in  the  Atharvan.  They  are  i.  8.  3  ;  17.  2. 
ii.  5.  4  {bis) ;  10.  7.  iv.  5.  6 ;  11. 12 ;  21. 1.  v.  2.  9.  vi.  3. 1, 
2 ;  4.  2 ;  9. 1 ;  44. 1 ;  77. 1 ;  99.  3 ;  136.  2.  vii.  14.  4 ;  48. 1. 
viii.  1. 12  ;  2.3;  4.  1, 13, 18^  ix.  1.  8 ;  6.  61 ;  10.  6.  x.  4. 12 ;;..  yn^ . 
8.26.  xii.3,31.^;xin,1^0,;"4.  48^55.  xvi.  6. 1.  xviii.  1.  23.  \  [^^"/ 
xix.45.  5;^9.  6;  58.4.  Tliere^  is  no  case  in  the  text  in  -^  •'*'•''" 
which  a  verb  occupying  this  position  is  not  accented,  unless 
it  be  the  following  : 

FTHT  W  iw  STTprq"  ^^ 

_        _  —      ^ 

taptS  gharmo  dukyate  vdm  isM  mddhu  (vii.  73.  1). 
If  this  is  to  be  translated,  as  the  analogy  of  the  next  verse 
seems  to  indicate,   "  the  gharma  is  heated ;   honey  is  poured 
out  to  you  for  food,"  then  the  verb  needs  to  be  accented 
^!^ ,  duhydte,  and  the  reading  should  be  so  amended. 

In  some  of  these  cases,  the  accentuation  is  an  important 
indication  of  the  way  in  which  the  structure  of  the  sentence 
is  to  be  understood. 


From  tliis  list  I  have  omitted,  however,  all  those  not  in- 
frequent cases  which  come  under  the  operation  of  the  famil- 
iar rule  given  by  the  Indian  grammarians,  that  a  verb  is 
accented  if  immediatelj^  preceded  by  another  verb.  It  is 
perfectly  obvious  that  such  a  case  is  in  reality  only  one  com- 
ing under  the  general  rule  for  the  accenting  of  a  verb  at  the 
head  of  its  own  clause  in  the  sentence :  there  can  be  but  one 
finite  verb  in  a  single  clause ;  if,  then,  any  verb  immediately 
follows  another  verb,  it  necessarily  occupies  the  initial  posi- 
tion, and  cannot  be  encliticizcd.     Thus,  in  the  sentence 

tdsmd  arcdma  Tirndvdma  nishkrUm  (vi.  27.  1), 
the  accent  of  the  second  verb  is  in  no  manner  owing  to  the 
contiguity  of  the  word  which  precedes  it,  but  to  the  fact  that 
it  is  followed  by  the  only  word  directly  connected  with  it  in 
construction  :  it  would  equally  require  to  be  accented  if  the 
sentence  were  thus  arranged  ; 

arcdma  tdsmdi  krndvdma  nishhrtim^ 

and  could  be  made  enclitic  only  by  having  its  own  subject 

placed  before  it ;  as 

rIFTT  WT  Pl^Ff  '^m^\^ 

tdsmd  arcdma  nishkrtim  hrnavdma. 

We  might  take  one  of  the  sentences  previously  given,  and, 
by  altering  a  little  its  arrangement,  seem  to  bring  its  accentu- 
ation within  the  scope  of  the  Indian  rule  ;   as 

V(m  qriH  ^^  ^"rt  ^fr  ^^^: 

grd'vd  pdtu  pd'tii  soviono  dhhasah  ; 

whereas  in  fact  the  second  Trg,  pdtu^  would  still  continue  to 
retain  its  accent  for  the  same  reason  as  before,  and  for  no 
other.  Fartlier  illustration  is  unnecessary  :  it  is  only  to  be 
wondered  at  that  a  rule  so  empirical  as  that  of  the  Indian 
grammars  should  have  maintained  itself  so  long  in  currency, 
and  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  phenomenon  should  not 
have  been  sooner  remarked. 


But  there  is  another  class  of  cases  in  the  Atharvan,  in 
which  the  verb  retains  its  accent  in  virtue  of  its  initial  posi- 
tion, while  nevertheless  it  is  only  by  an  arbitrary  division 
of  the  sentence  that  it  comes  to  be  looked  upon  and  treated 
as  occupying  that  position.  This  will  be  best  illustrated  by 
an  example: 

_        ^     _      _         *^ 

a!  no  goshu  hhdjatd' "  prajd'ydm  (vi.  55.  2), 
"Upon  us  kine  bestow  upon  us  progeny."  This  is  capable 
of  two  modes  of  division ;  the  comma  may  be  placed  either 
before  or  after  the  verb ;  we  may  read  "  Upon  us  kine  be- 
stoWj  upon  us  progeny,"  or  "  Upon  us  Sine,  bestow  upon 
us  progeny."  The  former  is  the  more  natural  and  easy ; 
but  the  latter  is  not  inadmissible,  even  in  the  English  trans- 
lation, and  is  notably  easier  in  the  Sanskrit  original.  In 
the  first  case  the  verb  would  be  enclitic,  in  the  second  it 
would  be  orthotone ;  that  in  the  text  it  actually  does  retain 
its  accent  shows  that  the  sentence  requires  to  be  divided  in 
the  second  manner.     Another  example  is 

jihvd'  jyd'  bhdvati  kulmalam  vd'k  (v.  18.  8), 
"  Lingua  ejus  in  nervum  convertitur  in  sagittam  vox ;"  here, 
too,  the  verb  is  accented  in  virtue  of  the  division  "Lingua 
ejus  in  nervum,  convertitur  in  sagittam  vox."  We  have, 
then,  the  rule,  that  if  the  verb  be  both  preceded  and  followed 
by  either  a  subject  or  an  object,  to  each  of  which  it  equally 
in  idea  belongs,  it  may  be  regarded  as  directly  construed 
with  the  latter  of  the  two,  and  may  accordingly  receive  the 
accent. 

Instances  coming  under  the  action  of  this  rule  are  not 
very  rare  in  the  Atharvan.  They  are*  iv.  5.  2  ;  9.  9.  v.  18. 
8;  27.  6.  vi.  55.  2;  92.  3;  106.  1;  107.  1-4.  vii.  4.  1. 
viii.  9.  13  ;  10.  12, 13,  22-29.  ix.  5.  37.  x.  8.  8.  xii.  3.  25, 
48.     xiii.  1.  19 ;  2.  26 ;  3.  12.     xiv.  1.  64.     xv.  3.  4,  5,  10 : 


*  In  a  few  of  these  passages,  viz.  viiL  10.  12,  13,  22-29.  xv.  4.  1-6,  the 
accent  has,  owing  to  a  misunderstanding,  been  omitted  from  tlie  verbs  in  the 
publislied  text,  and  requires  to  be  restored,  in  accordance  with  the  unanimous 
authority  of  the  manuscripts. 


t 


8 

4.  1-6.  xviii.  8.  8.  In  a  few  of  these  passages,  however, 
the  accent  of  the  verb  admits  also  of  being  explained  in 
another  manner,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  as  often  the  case  in  sen- 
tences of  this  character  tliat  the  more  obvious  mode  of  di- 
vision is  followed,  so  that  the  verb  remains  unaccented. 
Instances  are  i.  12.  3.  iii.  13.  6.  viii.  10.  16.  ix.  10.  26. 
xi.  9.  10.  XV.  12.  5,  9.  xvii.  17.  xviii.  2.  7 :  4.  11.  xix. 
10.  7 ;  36.  2  ;  etc.,  etc. 

Before  proceeding  to  take  notice  of  farther  instances  of 
verbal  accentuation  in  the  independent  sentence,  which  are 
to  be  regarded  as  more  special  exceptions  to  the  rules  already 
stated,  or  as  isolat(,ed  and  irregular  cases,  requiring  particu- 
lar explanation,  we  will  consider  the  condition  of  the  verb 
in  a  dependent  clause. 

The  Sanskrit,  like  the  German,  distinguishes  in  a  marked 
manner  its  accessorv  and  dependent  from  its  direct  and  in- 
dependent clauses,  by  its  difterent  treatment  of  the  verb  in 
the  two  cases.  But  while  the  Grerman  removes  the  verb  of 
the  subordinate  sentence  from  its  natural  position,  and  places 
it  at  the  end  of  the  sentence,  thus  changing,  for  instance, 
"Ich  habe  dem  Manne  das  Buch  gegeben"  to  "Da  ich  dem 
Manne  das  Buch  gegeben  habe,"  the  Sanskrit,  on  the  other 
hand,  alters  in  a  similar  case  not  the  position,  but  the  ac- 
centuation, of  the  verb,  changing  it  from  enclitic  to  ortho- 
tone.  We  have,  accordingly,  the  folloAving .  general  rule : 
the  Sanskrit  verb  retains  in  a  dependent  clause  its  own 
proper  accent;  and  that,  too,  even  at  the  cost,  in  case  the 
verb  be  one  compounded  with  a  preposition,  of  the  accent 
of  the  prefixed  preposition. 

As  in  German  the  dependent  clause  is  wont  to  be  intro- 
duced by  some  word  of  such  signification  as  necessarily 
conditions  its  dependency,  a  relative  or  a  subordinating  con- 
junction, sp  also  in  Sanskrit  it  generally  contains  some  form, 
of  declension  or  of  derivation,  from  the  relative  pronominal 
stem  ?r,  ya.  The  phenomenon,  indeed,  has  on  this  account 
been  always  hitherto  thus  stated :  "  the  verb  is  accented  in 
a  sentence  which  contains  a  form  of  ?i,  ya ;"  but  it  is  im- 
possible that  we  should  remain  contented  with  so  empirical 
a  rule  as  this ;  we  must  inquire  in  virtue  of  what  principle 
it  is  that  such  words  have  a  power  to  make  the  verb  ortho- 
tone.     And  that  the  principle  is  indeed  what  it  has  above 


9 

been  stated  to  be  may  be  very  satisfactorily  sliown.  For 
other  particles  than  those  derived  from  the  stem  ar,  ya,  if 
they  have  a  like  meaning,  and  possess  the  same  power  to 
render  the  sentence  dependent,  exercise  the  same  influence 
upon  the  verb. 

Thus  ^rT ,  ce^  (which  the  ^ac?a-text  divides  into  ^i^i  ca 
it),  which  means  always  distinctly  "if,"  and  is  accordingly 
equivalent  to  uf^,  yadi,  preserves,  as  the  latter  would  do, 
the  accent  of  the  verb  with  which  it  is  connected.  Instances 
of  its  occurrence  are  ii.  30.  2.     v.  17.  3,  8,  etc. 

But  ^,  ca,  itself,  without  always  losing  its  proper  signifi- 
cation "and,"  ol'  meaning  distinctly  "if,"  is  not  very  infre- 
quently made  use  of  to  assist  in  indicating  the  conditionality 
of  a  clause,  whose  verb  is  then  left  orthotone.    An  instance  is 

sd  cd  'tisrji)  juhvyd'n  nd  cd  'tisrjen  ndjvhuydt  (xv.  12,  8), 
"And  should  he  give  permission,  let  him  sacrifice;  and 
should  he  not  give  permission,  let  him  not  sacrifice."     Some- 
times, indeed,  the  particle  almost  precisely  equals  Jri^,  yadi^ 
as  in  the  following  passage  : 

f^FT  ^BT^  ^^  ?Tn%Frf  ^  ^  f^^if^ 

Mhste  ddattd  purusham  ydcitd'm  ca  nd  ditsati  (xii,  4.  13), 
"  Ungiven  she  harms  a  man,  if  he  will  not  give  her  when 
demanded."  The  conditionality  of  the  clause  is  the  main 
efficient  cause  of  the  accenting  of  the  verb ;  whether  the  par- 
ticle has  a  full  conditional  meaning,  or  is  employed  merely 
as  an  expedient  for  facilitating  the  expression,  is  a  matter  of 
minor  consequence.  The  other  Atharvan  passages  of  this 
character  are  viii.  10.  31.  xi.  3.  28,  29,  32^9a,  55,  56.  xii. 
4.  1,  16,  19,  25. 

Whether  a  clause  in  any  case,  without  the  presence  of  a 
word  conditioning  or  indicating  its  dependent  character, 
can  be  in  such  wise  dependent  as  that  its  vei'b  should  be 
thereby  rendered  orthotone,  is  a  question  for  the  solution  of 
which  the  Atharvan  hardly  presents  sutlficietit  material. 
There  is  but  a  single  passage  wlijch  seems  to  speak  clearly 
with  reference  to  this  point : 

2 


10 


udahhh  yd'caty  iid  gdyati  (ix.  6.  48\ 

"  If  he  offers  water"  (the  hymn  is  extolling  the  merit  of 
hospitable  attentions  paid  to  guests),  "  he  sings  a  sdman'^ 
(that  is,  "it  is  of  equal  virtue  with  the  religious  action  of 
singing  a  sdman'^).  Here  the  conditionality  of  the  first 
clause  seems  to  be  the  sufficient  cause  of  the  accent  of  the 
verb ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  a  comparison  of  the  preceding 
clauses,  as 


^^fFT  ^#fTTFr 


alhl  vadati prd  stduti, 

"If  he  greets  them,  he  utters  praise,"  would  seem  to  lead 
us  to  the  recognition  of  this  rule  :  that  in  such  a  situation  the 
verb  was  left  orthotone,  except  when  compounded  with  a 
preposition,  in  which  latter  case  the  preposition  still  retained 
the  accent.*  But  this  single  passage  is  not  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish a  general  rule :  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  material  may 
be  derived  from  the  other  accented  texts  which  shall  clear 
up  the  matter.  There  is,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  but  one 
other  passage  in  the  Atharvan,  where  it  seems  necessary  to 
regard  a  clause  as  conditional  which  contains  no  indicatory 
particle;  viz: 

etdd  vojyotih  pitaras  trtVyam  pdncdudanam  hrahmdne  ^ijdm 
daddii  (ix.  5.  11), 

"  This  is  (i.  e.  wins)  your  third  (i.  e.  highest)  brightness,  ye 
Fathers,  that  one  gives  to  a  Brahman  a  goat  with  five  oda- 
nasy  And  here  the  verb  is  left  unaccented,  although  not  a 
compounded  one.  Whether  the  accentuation  in  either  of 
these  passages  is  erroneous,  or  how  the  seeming  discrepancy 
between  them  is  to  be  otherwise  explained,  I  must  leave  an 
open  question,  until  more  light  can  be  thrown  upon  the  sub- 
ject from  other  sources. 

There  is  one  other  passage  which  might  appear  to  re- 
quire consideration  in  this  connection : 

*  See  Benfey's  Grammar,  §  127. 1  (remark),  5,  9  (remark  1),  11,  for  instances 
of  this  difference  in  accentual  usage  between  the  simple  and  compounded  verb. 


11 

IdJcshma  hurva  xii  mdnyate  (xii.  4.  6), 

"If  he  thinks  to  himself  'I  am  making  a  mark;' "  jet  the 
evidence  to  be  derived  from  this  is  not  wholly  unambiguous, 
as  it  would  not  be  altogether  inadmissible  to  suppose  the 
influence  of  the  relative  pronoun  with  which  the  verse  be- 
gins to  extend  itself  to  this  part  also. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that,  by  Yedic  usage,  the  particle 
^,  hi^  always  accents  the  verb  with  which  it  is  construed 
(as  does  also  its^negative,  ^Tf%,  nahi).  This  also  I  ascribe  to 
the  conditional  force  inherent  in  it.  It  is,  indeed,  originally 
possessed  of  no  such  force ;  etymologically,  it  seems  to  be 
merely  an  asseverative  particle,  akin  with  i;,  Aa,  and  5^,  aha. 
It  is,  accordingly,  in  the  later  language  not  infrequently 
employed  as  an  expletive,  to  fill  out  the  artificial  structure 
of  the  gloka  ;  and  it  is  sometimes,  even  in  the  Veda,  found 
so  used,  having  a  hardly  appreciable  significance  in  the  sen- 
tence in  which  it  occurs.  But  it  is  ordinarily  made  use  of 
to  accompany  and  point  out  a  circumstance  which  is  put 
forward  as  the  ground  of,  the  reason  for,  the  inducement  to, 
some  other  action ;  and  by  virtue  of  this  usage,  it  has  ac- 
quired a  certain  degree  of  causative  or  conditional  force. 
The  transition  of  meaning  may  be  illustrated  by  an  exam- 
ple or  two.  If  we  say  "Help  us,  thou  art  surely  mighty," 
(German  "Hilf  uus,  du  bist  jamachtig,")  there  is  no  distinct 
subordination  of  the  latter  clause  to  the  former,  and  yet  the 
second  clause  is  evidently  alleged  as  the  reason  of  the  first, 
and  it  is  but  a  step  fiirther  to  say  "  Help  us,  for  thou  art 
mighty."     The  Sanskrit  sentence 

prd  no  ava  hdlavdn  hy  dsi, 

would  ordinarily,  and  with  perfect  correctness,  be  transla- 
ted as  equivalent  to  the  latter  form  of  the  phrase ;  while  it 
would  nevertheless,  strictly  taken,  rather  correspond  to  the 
former.  Indeed,  as  f|;,  hi,  is  never  allowed  to  stand  at  the 
beginning  of  a  sentence  in  Sanskrit,  but  must  always  follow 
some  other  word,  and  as  it  thus,  although  not  enclitic, 
holds  a  subordinate  position,  it  is  still  more  clearly  shown 


12 

to  be  unequal  in  force  to  our  conjunction  "for,"  In  Ger- 
man, not  even  "  for"  gives  to  the  clause  which  it  introduces 
a  dependent  form :  we  say  "  Hilf  uns,  denn  du  bist  raiich- 
tig:"  jet  the  difference  between  this  and  the  dependent 
clause  "...  well  du  miichtig  bist,"  "...  because  thou  art 
mighty,"  is  rather  a  formal  than  a  logical  one.  There  is  a 
continuous  scale  of  dependency  in  the  phrases  "thou  art 
surely  mighty,"  "for  thou  art  mighty,"  "since  thou  art 
mighty,"  "  because  that  thou  art  mighty,"  and  while  in  Ger- 
man only  the  last  is  regarded  as  dependent,  in  Sanskrit  the 
first  is  treated  as  if  equivalent  to  any  of  the  rest,  and  its 
verb  is  accented,  according  to  the  general  rule  for  dependent 
clauses.  We  may  reverse  the  order  of  the  clauses  in  the 
example  we  have  taken,  and  write 

bdlavda  hy  dsi  prd  no  ava; 

and  here  too  we  have  the  verb  accented,  as  if  the  transla- 
tion were  "Since  thou  art  mighty,  help  us,"  "Da  du  ja 
machtig  bist,  so  hilf  uns;"  while,  if  closely  interpreted,  it  is 
rather,  "Thou  art  surely  mighty,  (then)  help  us,"  "Du  bist 
ja  machtig,  (also)  hilf  uns ;"  the  particle  hardly  exercising  a 
stronger  force  than  to  establish  the  relation  of  the  two  clauses 
as,  protasis  and  ajjodosis. 

In  almost  every  instance  of  the  occurrence  of  f|;,  hi,  in 
the  Atharvan,  it  has  more  or  less  evidently  this  semi-condi- 
tional force.     Thus  we  have 

ugrd'  hi  kanvajdvibhani  td'm  abhakshi  sdhasvatim  (ii.  25.  1), 
"  Since  it  is  a  fierce  destroyer  of  the  kanva^  it,  the  mighty, 
I  have  made  use  of."     And  again, 

f%  FT  g^rrt  i%5^  f^  Hfrif 

VI  te^  muncantdm  vimuco  hi  sdnti  (vi.  112.  3), 

"Let  them  release  him,  for  they  are  releasers."     It  would 

*  The  printed  text  gives,  on  the  authority  of  all  the  manuscripts,  te ;  but 
the  emendation  as  above  is  evidently  necessary.  In  many  other  cases  also, 
the  manuscripts  confound  te  and  te. 


13 

be  easy  to  multiply  examples,  but  it  is  believed  tliat  enougli 
has  already  been  said  to  establish  and  illustrate  that  which 
it  was  our  purpose  to  show ;  that  the  particle  in  question 
derives  its  power  to  render  the  verb  orthotone  from  the 
weak  causative  signification  which  the  usage  of  the  lan- 
guage has  given  it. 

With  regard  to  the  particle  ^  net  (pac?a-text  ^ri^i,  na  it), 
usage  is  divided.  It  occurs,  in  connection  with  a  verb,  but 
four  times  in  the  Atharvan.  In  two  passages,  viz.  vi.  50. 1. 
xiii.  1.  12,  it  renders  the  verb  orthotone,  as  if,  like  the  kin- 
dred particle  ^ ,  cet,  already  treated  of,  it  had  acquired  a 
subordinating  force,  and  were  equivalent  to  Latin  ne,  Ger- 
man dass  nichtl;  in  the  other  two  passages,  viz.  ii.  27.  1. 
xviii.'2.  58,  it  leaves  the  verb  enclitic,  as  if  the  ^,  it,  merely 
strengthened  the  force  of  the  negative,  as  should  be  its  most 
natural  effect. 

The  three  particles  %rr^,  cet,  qrr^,  net,  and  f|;,  hi,  illustrate 
in  an  interesting  manner  each  other's  history.  Neither  of 
them  has  etymologically  any  relative  or  subordinating  qual- 
ity ;  they  mean  originally  simply  "  and  surely,"  "  not  surely," 
"  surely ;"  but  each  has  in  the  usage  of  the  language  devel- 
oped out  of  this  plain  asseverative  signification  another 
which  gives  it  the  power  to  render  the  clause  in  which  it  is 
found  dependent;  and  as  "if,"  "lest,"  and  "since,"  they 
make  orthotone  the  verb  with  which  they  are  construed. 

The  particle  f^ ,  kirn,  nowhere  in  the  Atharvan  exercises 
an  influence  upon  the  accent  of  the  verb  in  its  clause,  even 
where,  as  in  vii.  56.  6,  8.  viii.  4.  14(?).  xviii.  1.  12,  33,  it 
appears  to  ask  a  direct  question.  In  v.  11.  5,  pdda  c,  a  part 
of  the  manuscripts  do  indeed  accent  the  verb,  yet  the  weight 
of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the  text  as  printed.  When  the 
particle  means  "what?",  "why?",  or  "how!",  as  in  v.  13.  7. 
vi.  45. 1.  ix.  10. 18,  etc.,  etc.,  of  course  no  effect  upon  the 
accent  would  be  expected  from  it. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  the  direct  subordination  of  one 
clause  of  a  sentence  to  another  has  an  effect  to  render  ortho- 
tone  the  verb  of  the  subordinated  clause.  We  have  also 
remarked,  when  treating  of  the  particle  f|;,  hi,  that  the  sub- 
ordination does  not  always  require  to  be  absolute,  but  that 
a  distinctly  defined  relation  of  two  of  the  clauses  of  a  sen- 
tence to  one  another  as  protasis  and  apodosis  was  sufficient  to 


i 


14 

preserve  the  accent  of  the  verb  in  the  former  clause.  We 
have  now  farther  to  notice,  that  this  principle  has  in  the 
usage  of  the  language  received  a  somewhat  inorganic  exten- 
sion ;  that  it  has  been  strctclied  to  cover  cases  to  which  it  did 
not  in  strictness  apply.  Such  I  conceive,  namely,  to  be  the 
explanation  of  the  accent  of  the  verb  in  a  very  considerable 
number  of  passages,  where  two  clauses  stand  as  correlatives 
to  one  another,  or  even  where  there  is  such  a  parallelism 
between  them  that  they  may  be  regarded  as  in  a  manner 
correlative.  The  coordination  is  treated  as  if  it  were  a  sub- 
ordination ;  the  first  of  the  coordinate  clauses  is  looked  upon 
as  a  protasis^  to  wdiich  the  other  constitutes  an  apodosis,  and 
the  verb  of  the  former  is  allowed  to  remain  orthotone. 

Thus,  for  instance,  when  ^rjr— =g7?j,  anya-anya,  "the  one 
■ — the  other,"  stand  opposed  to  one  another,  as  subject  or  as 
object,  in  two  like  clauses,  the  verb  of  the  first  clause  re- 
tains its  accent.     Take  as  examples 

^  FT  5^RT  ^^  ^{^'t  ^W[  ?T?7T: 

ddksham  te  anyd  dvd'tu*  vy  dnyo  vdtu  ydd  rdpah  (iv.  13.  2) ; 

ny  dnydm  cikyur  nd  ni  cikyur  anydm  (ix.  10.  16). 
The  other  instances  are  vii.  81. 1.  ix.  9.  20 ;  iOr2B.  x.  7.  42. 
xiii.  2.  11.     Also  the  passage  vii.  35.  la,  b,  may  properly  be 
regarded  as  coming  under  this  rule,  although  only  one  ^5^, 
anya^  that  of  the  first  clause,  is  there  expressed;  the  other 
is  contained  in  idea  in  the  second  clause. 
A.^^'  /J|f.  c-^^r        In  two  cases,  viz.  x.  8.  36.   xi.  8.  33,  we  have,  instead  of 
J^o,.  f.i<>Hi'i     ^^^^  ayiya^  ^— '^,  eha — e^a,  with  the  same  meaning,  and 
.^.vjj-s*t^r>.         with  a  similar  effect  upon  the  accent  of  the  verb. 

In  X.  8.  7,  13.  xi.  4.  22,  we  find  a  like  correlation  pro- 
duced by  the  use  of  mr— mr,  ardha — ardha,  "the  one  half — 
the  other  half." 

Bat  even  where  the  correlation  is  less  clearly  and  sharply 
brought  out,  if  there  is  nevertheless  a  distinct  antithesis,  the 
same  phenomenon  of  verbal  accentuation  is  not  infrequently 
presented.     Thus  we  have  in  vi.  11.  3  an  antithesis  of  "  else- 

*  The  reading  of  the  printed  text  is  false,  and  must  be  amended  to  agree 
with  this. 


15 

where"  and  "here;"  in  xii.  2.  32,  55,  of  ''those  there"  and 
"these  here;"  in  iv.  5.  7,  of  "others"  and  "myself;"  in  vi. 
67.  3,  of  motion  "away"  and  "hither;"  in  ix.  10.  9,  of  "to- 
day" and  "yesterday;"  in  ix.  10.  23,  of  an  idea  and  its  nega- 
tion. Moreover,  wherever  srr— sit,  vd — vd,  "either — or,"  are 
construed  in  two  clauses  with  two  separate  verbs,  the  corre- 
lation is  reo;arded  as  distinct  enouo^h  to  occasion  the  accent- 
ing  of  the  first  verb ;  the  instances  are  not  numerous,  but 
they  are  all  those  in  which  this  particle  so  occurs  ;  they  are 
V.  1.  7  (where,  however,  the  effect  of  the  relative  in  the  sec- 
ond clause  might  possibly  be  supposed  to  extend  back  into 
the  first),  viii.  4.v9.     In  the  following  passage, 

tdsya  vd  tvdm  mdna  ichd'  sd  vd  lava  (xviii.  1.  16), 
the  accent  of  the  verb  is  unquestionably  due  to  the  same 
cause,  although  the  sentence  is  incomplete,  a  part  of  the 
second  clause,  including  its  verb,  being  left  to  be  supplied  in 
idea  from  the  first.  More  numerous  are  the  cases  in  which 
the  antithesis  of  g"— =Er,  ca — ca^  "  both — and,"  produces  the 
same  efiect :  they  are  ii.  6.  2  ;  13.  3.  v.  4.  9  ;  23.  7  (where 
we  have  also,  as  in  ix.  10.  23,  the  antithesis  of  an  idea  and 
its  negation),  vi.  110.  1.  xiii.  1.  34  (ter).  xvii.  6.  xix.  24. 
5,  6.  In  vii.  5.  5  is  a  like  antithesis  of  3rT— 3rr,  uta — uta, 
unless  we  are  rather  to  suppose  the  correlative  force  to  lie 
in  the  two  contrasted  instrumentals.    The  following  passage, 

striyag  ca  sdrvdh  svdpdya  gunac  ce  'ndrasakhd  cdran  (iv.  5.  2), 
has  been  included  above  among  the  instances  of  initial  ac- 
centuation, but  is  perhaps  rather  to  be  explained  as  an  anti- 
thetical sentence  of  the  class  here  treated  of,  of  which  the 
second  member  is  defective,  its  verb  requiring  to  be  supplied 
from  the  first,  as  in  the  passage  xviii.  1. 16,  just  now  cited. 
Several  other  of  the  passages  formerly  referred  to  may  also  . 
receive  a  similar  explanation:  thus  i v.  9.  9  (where  si^i^^,  „'v)|^AA'^ 
jambhayat,  perhaps  requires  to  be  amended  to  ^^n;u,  jmnhhaya)^ 
V.  27.  6.  vi.  107.  1-4.  vii.  4. 1.  ix.  5.  37.  xii.  3.  25  :  while 
vi.  106.  1.  viii.  9.  13.  xiii.  3. 12.  xiv.  1.  64,  admit  of  being 
looked  upon  as  defective  antitheses  of  the  other  kinds  here 
treated  of. 


16 

Besides  tliese,  there  are  a  few  passages,  composed  each  of 
two  clauses,  in  the  first  of  which  the  verb  is  left  orthotone, 
where  the  antithesis  is  less  distinctly  marked  than  in  the 
cases  hitherto  noted,  while  nevertheless  their  accentuation 
seems  to  be  referable  to  the  same  principle.  Thej  are  vi, 
82.2;  83.1.  ix.5.22;  8.10.  xii.3.18.  xiii.2.  30  b.  xiv.1.13. 
Had  we  these  passages  only,  we  should  not  venture  to  derive 
from  them  any  such  principle  ;  but,  having  well  established 
it  as  a  tendency  of  the  language  to  assume,  even  on  slight 
occasion,  an  antithetical  relation,  and  to  accent  accordingly, 
we  are  justified  in  presuming  its  extension  to  these  cases 
also. 

We  have  thus  far  found  all  the  phenomena  of  verbal  ac- 
centuation of  which  we  have  taken  note  to  be  occasioned, 
more  or  less  regularly  and  directly,  by  the  working  of  a 
single  principle  ;  that,  namely,  the  verb  in  an  independent 
clause  is  accented  only  when  occupying  the  initial  position, 
being  otherwise  made  enclitic  upon  any  member  of  the  same 
clause  by  which  it  is  preceded  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
maintains  in  a  dependent  clause  its  own  proper  accent.  But 
there  are  in  the  Atharvan  a  number  of  instances  of  accented 
verbs,  which  do  not  seem  to  fall  so  clearly  within  the  sphere 
of  action  of  this  principle :  either  they  are  the  effect  of  a 
wholly  irregular  extension  of  it  beyond  its  proper  limits,  or 
they  are  due  to  the  operation  of  some  other  principle,  which 
needs  to  be  evolved  and  stated,  or  they  are  isolated  cases, 
destitute  of  all  analogies,  and  on  that  account  of  doubtful 
authenticity.  Before  we  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
these  remaining  cases,  we  must  take  notice  of  the  condition 
in  which  the  accentuation  of  the  Atharvan  is  presented  by 
the  manuscripts  of  the  text  now  extant.  The  whole  text 
is  very  much  less  accurately  and  correctly  constructed  than 
is  that  of  the  Rik :  there  are  to  be  found  in  it  gross  blunders, 
of  which  the  correction  is  almost  at  the  first  sight  apparent, 
and  many  passages  are  in  a  very  corrupt  state,  requiring 
extensive  emendation.  But  it  especially  abounds  in  palpa- 
ble errors  of  accentuation  :  many  of  these  we  have  even  not 
hesitated  to  amend  in  the  published  edition  :  thus,  words  of 
frequent  occurrence  have  been  in  an  instance  or  two  accen- 
ted upon  the  wrong  syllable  ;  nominatives  have  been  erro- 
neously taken  for  vocatives,  and  deprived  of  their  accent,  or 
vocatives  have  been  falsely  regarded  as  nominatives,  and 


rf. 

have  received  an  accent  to  which  they  were  not  entitled ; 
the  true  point  of  division  between  the  two  pddas  of  a  hne 
has  been  mistaken,  and  vocatives  and  verbal  forms  have 
been  in  consequence  wrongly  accented,  or  left  unaccented, 
as  they  were  wrongly  supposed  to  stand,  or  not  to  stand,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  pdda ;  the  verb  of  a  clearly 
dependent  clause,  even  after  a  form  of  the  relative  u,  ya,  has 
been  left  enclitic ;  and  so  on.  More  than  a  hundred  such 
cases  have  been  corrected  by  us  in  the  published  text,  and 
not  a  few  which  we  have  left  untouched  still  call  for  emend- 
ation :  our  commentary  will,  of  course,  fully  explain  and 
account  for  the  alterations  we  have  made  in  the  text  offered 
by  the  manuscripts,  and  will  point  out  the  places  where  we 
suppose  that  farther  alteration  is  demanded.  It  may  then, 
of  course,  not  very  infrequently  be  the  case,  that  verbal 
forms  are  erroneously  accented  by  the  manuscripts ;  it  would 
be  strange  if  it  were  not  so,  at  least  in  some  instances ;  yet 
in  so  much  uncertainty  has  the  subject  of  verbal  accentua- 
tion hitherto  been  involved,  that  we  have  only  very  rarely, 
and  in  cases  which  seemed  quite  clear,  ventured  to  take  away 
from  a  verb  an  accent  which  our  authorities  gave  to  it. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  we  have  allowed  ourselves  even  that 
liberty  :  I  will  proceed  to  give  the  instances  here,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  possibility  of  having  omitted  from  this  paper 
material  which  ought  to  be  embraced  in  it. 
Thus,  in  iv.  32.  1,  we  have  read 

sdha  Sjah  pushyati  vicvam  dmcshdk, 

while  ali  the  manuscripts  give  ^:  q^fn,  ojah  pushyati^  be-  ^ 

cause  the  former  reading  seems  better  to  suit  the  sense,  and  •  "' 
because  the  Eig-Yeda,  in  the  corresponding  passage  (x.  83. 
1),  leaves  the  verb  unaccented.  It  might,  nevertheless,  not 
be  impossible  to  account  for  the  reading  as  given  by  the 
Atharvan  manuscripts :  if  we  regard  the  two  words  preced- 
ing the  verb  as  objects  of  the  verb  of  the  preceding  pdda^ 
or,  better,  if  we  look  upon  the  word  following  the  verb  as 
a  noun  constituting  an  independent  object  of  it,  translating 
"might,  strength — he  acquires  everything  in  succession," 
then  the  verb  wovdd  be  entitled  to  be  accented  in  virtue  of 
its  initial  position. 

3 


18 
Again,  in  iv.  31.  2,  stands  in  the  text 

agnir   iva   manijo   tvishitah   sahasva   sendni'r  nah  sahure 

Mud  edhi, 
whereas  all  the  sanhitd  manuscripts  (excepting  one,  which  is 
amended  to  the  above  reading)  give  ^pg-,  sahasva.  The 
Rik  (x.  81.  2)  leaves  the  verb  unaccented,  which,  with  the 
pada  manuscript,  and  the  amended  sanhitd,  seemed  to  us 
sufficient  authority  for  the  reading  which  we  have  adopted. 
Yet  even  here  I  do  not  regard  the  accenting  of  the  verb  as 
certainly  erroneous :  it  might  be  defended  by  the  analogy  of 
vi.  32.  2,  and  of  the  other  passages  cited  with  the  latter  above, 
as  an  indistinct  antithesis. 

Another  case,  iv.  31.  7,  is  clearer ;  we  read 

pdrdjiidso  dpa  ni  layantdm., 

spite  of  the  authority  of  the  manuscripts,  which  are  unani- 
mous in  favor  of  yiUc^dm ,  Idyanidm.  Here  also  the  Eik  (x. 
84,  7)  has  the  former  reading,  nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any 
conceivable  reason  why  the  verb  should  be  accented,  nor,  if 
it  were  so,  could  the  preceding  preposition  maintain  its  ac- 
cent also,  as  the  manuscripts  allow  it  to  do.  We  have  evi- 
dently a  mere  blunder  of  the  manuscripts  to  deal  with  in 
this  passage. 

In  iii.  2.  1,  all  the  manuscripts  read 


^\^  j^^  wm  i%^ 


agnir  no  dutdh  pratyelu  vidvd'n, 

which  we  have  altered  to  ti;irirTi  prdty  etu.  The  analogy  of 
the  first  line  of  the  preceding  hymn  was  sufficient  authority 
for  the  alteration,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  manu- 
scripts should  have  come  to  commit  the  error  of  accenting 
the  verb  here ;  unless,  possibly,  they  were  led  away  by  the 
fancied  analogy  of  the  last  pdda  of  the  second  verse  in  the 


19 

preceding  hymn,  where  it  is  in  fact  the  presence  of  a  %  hi, 
that  makes  the  verb  orthotone.* 
In  V.  12.  2,  the  manuscripts  have 

tdnunapdt  pathd  rtdsya  yd'ndn  mddhvd  samanjdnt  svaddyd 
sujihva, 

while  the  printed  text  gives  ^st^ttt,  svadayd.  The  latter 
reading  was  adopted  on  the  authority  of  the  corresponding 
passage  in  the  Rik  (x.  110.  2),  as  there  seemed  to  be  no  rea- 
son requiring  the  verb  to  be  accented.  Yet  here  also,  it 
might  be  possible  to  defend  the  reading  of  the  manuscripts : 
if  the  accusative  in  the  first  ^ao?a  be  regarded  as  the  object 
more  directly  of  the  participle  than  of  the  verb,  as  would 
be  allowable,  the  latter  might  be  looked  upon  as  occupying 
an  initial  position,  and  therefore  entitled  to  retain  its  accent. 
Again,  in  vi.  181.  2,  the  edition  has 

d'hute  sdm  iddm  namah, 

while  all  the  manuscripts  agree  in  reading  t^:,  ndmah.  The 
propriety  of  the  emendation  cannot  be  questioned:  the 
false  reading  may  have  been  a  mere  slip  of  the  pen  on  the 
part  of  the  scribe  of  the  original  manuscript,  or  the  word 
may  have  been  mistaken  for  the  frequent  noun  titt:,  ndmah. 
Another  very  similar  instance  is  found  in  xviii.  2.  36, 

J[t  fTT  ^\f^  rVft  W^  ^  7F^{  FTTi 

gam  tapa  md'  'ti  tapo  dgne  md'  tanvdrh  tdpah: 
here,  too,  there  seems  to  be  no  assignable  reason  why  the 
last  word  should  be  accented :  I  suspect  it  to  have  been 
taken,  by  a  blunder,  for  the  common  noun  fw:  tdpah^  "  pen- 
ance," and  would  alter  the  reading  to  fr^  ft^;,  ianvdm  tapah. 
Once  more,  in  xiv.  1.  16, 

tad  addhdtdya  id  viduh, 

*  But  where,  by  an  error  of  the  pre3a,pr(U}f  e^w  stands, instead  ofpratyitu, 
ivbicb  the  maauscripts  corr«ctly  ^v«. 


20 

all  the  Athai'van  manuscripts  give  rfl:^:,  idviduh:  as  the 

accent  of  the  verb  seemed  in  this  passage  quite  unexplaina- 
ble,  we  have  not  hesitated  to  amend  it  to  an  agrement  with 
the  parallel  passage  of  the  Rik  (x.  85.  IG). 

These  are  all  the  instances  in  which  we  have  taken  away 
from  any  verbal  form  an  accent  given  to  it  by  the  manu- 
scripts ;  excepting  two,  which  bear  plainly  on  their  face  the 
evidence  that  they  are  blunders,  being  accented  upon  the 
wrong  syllable.     These  are  i.  24.  1,  ?^q-  ^^  rupdin  cakre,  for 

which  all  the  manuscripts  have  ^sm^  cdJcre,  while  the  true 
accentuation  of  the  form,  if  accented  at  all,  would  be  ^wr, 
calcre;  and  xii.  4.  28,  \su  sr^jri^rT,  devd'  vrgcanti,  in  place  of 
which  the  manuscripts  unanimously  read  aidf^,  vr'gcantt, 
although  only  the  accentuation  sraf^,  vrgcanti,  could  be  tol- 
erated. It  is  sufficiently  clear  that,  in  both  these  cases,  the 
errors  are  due  to  a  slip  of  the  pen  of  the  scribe  who  copied 
the  original  manuscript  from  which  all  ours  are  descended, 
the  mark  of  the  accent  being  set  over  the  wrong  syllable. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  which  indicate  clearly  what 
allowance  is  to  be  made  for  inaccuracies  and  errors  in  the 
text,  we  may  now  proceed  to  examine  the  remaining  instan- 
ces of  accented  verbs  which  it  presents. 

In  iii.  23.  5,  we  have 

yds  tuhhyam  gdm  dsac  chdm  u  tdsmdi  tvdm  bhdva. 

The  most  natural  ending  to  the  verse  would  seem  to  be 

gdm  u  ydsmdi  tvdm  Ikdvah, 

"  and  to  whom  thou  in  turn  mayest  be  propitious ;"  and  it 
is  perhaps  not  impossible  that  this  is  felt  to  be  virtually 
present  in  the  reading  as  given,  and  that  therefore  the  im- 
perative is  accented ;  yet  there  is  room  to  suspect  ^sr,  bhdva, 
to  be  a  mere  slip  of  the  pen  for  lisr,  bhava. 
Again,  in  iv.  1.  4c, 

mahd'n  inaM'  dskabhdyad  vijdtdh, 


21 

it  is  very  hard  to  see  why  the  verb  should  have  in  this  pdda 
an  accent  which  it  lacks  in  the  preceding  one,  where  the  con- 
struction seems  to  be  the  same.  Probably  we  have  to  amend 
to  ^^wr°,  askahhdyad. 

In  verse  7  of  the  same  hymn,  in  the  last  pdda^ 

havir  devo  nd  ddhhdyat  svadhd'vdn^ 

we  seem,  indeed,  to  have  an  accented  verbal  form ;  but  it  is 
only  in  seeming;  for  ^[innrT,  ddbhdyat,  is  unquestionably  to  be 
amended  to  -^^yrni,  ddhhdya^  dative  of  531,  dabha  ;  and  the  pas- 
sage means,  he  "is  not  for  a  harming,"  i.  e.  "is  not  one  who 
can  be  harmed."  This  construction,  frequent  enough  in  the 
Rik,  is  quite  rare  in  the  Atharvan,  and  in  one  or  two  other 
instances  has  been  badly  blundered  over  by  the  establishers 
of  the  text.  K  we  had  here,  it  may  be  remarked,  a  verbal 
form  requiring  accent,  it  would  have  to  be  accented  5>n^fT^, 
dabhdydt. 

Again,  in  iv.  19.  2, 

nd  tdtra  hhaydm  dsti  ydtra  prdpnoshy  oshadhe^ 
I  am  inclined  to  attribute  the  hardly  otherwise  explainable 
accent  of  the  first  verb  to  an  original  error  of  transcription, 
and  to  amend  to  ^^ynRri,  hhaydm,  asti. 

Again,  in  v.  18.  4, 

mr  vd'i  kshatrdm  ndyati  hdnii  vdrcah, 

we  might  suspect  ^frf,  ndyati,  to  be  an  error  for  ^THrfFT,  nayati; 

yet  it  seems  better  here  to  assume  an  antithesis  between  the 
two  clauses,  of  force  enough  to  render  orthotone  the  verb  of 
the  first. 

Again,  in  vi.  21.  3,  we  have 

vM  sthd  k&pdr'hhanir  dtJw  ha  heqavdrdhanih. 


22 

Here,  too,  it  may  be  made  a  question  whether  we  are  to  find 
a  sufficient  antithesis  to  account  for  the  accent  of  the  verb, 
or  whether  we  are  to  suppose  that  the  accent-sign  has  been 
sHpped  away  from  the  ■^j  stha,  to  the  succeeding  syllable. 
I  incline  to  prefer  the  former. 

Again,  in  vi.  32.  1,  the  printed  text  gives 

antarddve  juliutd  .w  etdt, 

but  it  is  by  an  error  of  the  press,  for  ^JrU,  juhutd',  which  is 

the  reading  of  the  manuscripts.     But  I  conceive  this  to  be 
a  reversal  of  the  original  error  by  which  the  verb  got  its 
accent  in  the  manuscripts,  as  I  am  unable  to  find  any  reason 
why  it  should  be  left  orthotone. 
In  the  passage  vi.  60.  2, 

ango  nv  dryamann  asyd'  anyd'h  sdmanam  d'yati, 

the  pada-text  divides  the  last  word  ^•stiijfwi,  d-dyati,  thus 

giving  the  verb  an  accent.     But  I  do  not  see  how  the  form, 

w^hich  is  elsewhere  always  singular,  can  be  borne  as  a  plural ; 

it  may,  perhaps,  be  amended  to  ^wmT,  that  is,  mitiijPrfi,  d' 

ayanti. 

A  similar  case  is  vi.  131.  3, 

tdfas  tvdrh  punar  d'yas\ 

which  the  pada-iQ.xX  understands   to  be  ^-s^aRrf^i ,  d-dyasi^ 

whereas  it  is  rather  ^gri^grrf^i ,  d'  ayasi. 

Again,  in  vi.  78.  2, 

rayyd'  sakdsravarcase  'md'u  std'm  dnupaJcshitdu, 
I  can  discover  no  ground  for  preserving  to  the  verb  its  ac- 
cent, and  believe  the  accent-sign  to  have  become  lost  from 
under  it.     I  would  read  ^!WJ°,  stdm,  etc. 


28 

Again,  in  vi.  128.  1, 

iddm  rdshtrdm  dsdd  itij 

we  are  perhaps  to  assume  that  an  accent-sign  has  been  omit- 
ted under  the  syllable  it,  ma,  the  restoration  of  which  would 
leave  the  verb  unaccented. 
Again,  in  viii.  10.  1, 

iydm  eve  'dam  hltavishydti'  Hi, 

it  may  be  that  the  last  horizontal  accent-sign  has  been  slipped 
away  from  its  place,  and  that  we  have  to  amend  to  irfsiwmf^ 
hhavishyatV  'ti. 

Had  we  these  two  instances  only,  of  clauses  cited  by  means 
of  the  particle  of  quotation  jin,  iti,  we  should  be  inclined  to 
regard  them  as  cases  of  the  accenting  of  the  verb  in  a  de- 
pendent clause  ;  since  a  quoted  sentence  is  in  fact  a  kind  of 
dependent  sentence,  and  is  so  treated  in  some  languages, 
being  distinguished  in  German,  for  instance,  by  the  use  of 
the  subjunctive  instead  of  the  indicative  mood.  And  per- 
haps we  may  be  allowed  to  explain  thus  the  accent  of  the 
two  clauses  under  consideration,  even  though  no  other  analo- 
gous passages  can  be  adduced  to  support  this  explanation. 
For,  of  all  the  numerous  cases  in  the  text  (more  than  thirty), 
where  a  clause  containing  a  verb  is  cited  by  the  particle 
^f^,  iti,  these  two  are  the  only  ones  in  which  the  verb  re- 
ceives an  accent.  Elsewhere,  the  quotation  is  made  in  the 
form  of  an  independent  sentence,  just  as  it  would  be  spoken  ; 
and  that,  whether  it  be  the  direct  object  of  a  verb  of  speak- 
ing, as  in  i.  7.  4,  or  whether  it  indicate  the  "reason  why," 
or  the  "  end  for  which"  (which  was  its  use  in  the  two  pas- 
sages last  quoted),  as  in  x.  2.  5.  Other  instances  are  iv.  17, 4; 
20.  6.   V.  19.  9  ;  23. 1,  etc.,  etc. 

Again,  in  xiv.  1.  32, 


f^^'^^rr:  ^^^  oft  wffT 


mqve  devd'h  Jcrdnn  ihd  vo  mdndnsi, 

I  can  discover  no  reason  why  the  verb  should  be  accented, 


24 

and  suspect  tlie  true  reading  to  be  ^f^^,  hrann  ihd,  a  sign 
of  accent  having  been  lost  in  the  manuscripts. 
Again,  in  xix.  31.  6, 

ahdm  pafun&'m  adhipa'  dsdni  m&yi  pushtdm  pushtapdtir  dadhdtu, 
it  seems  very  uncertain  whether  the  antithesis  can  be  re- 
garded as  being  distinct  enough  to  warrant  the  accenting  of 
the  verb  in  the  first  pdda.  And  it  is  moreover  to  be  noticed, 
that  in  the  nineteenth  book  of  the  text  the  manuscripts  are 
most  especially  faulty,  so  that  their  authority  in  doubtful 
and  difficult  cases  is  of  almost  no  weight  whatever.  I  have 
not  pretended  to  give  above  all  the  instances  in  which  we 
have  amended  in  this  book  the  accentuation  of  verbs :  a 
record  of  them  may  be  found  among  the  foot-notes  to  eacb 
page.  We  need  not,  then,  hesitate  to  amend  to  wrf^,  asdni, 
if  it  shall  seem  desirable,  in  the  passage  now  under  consid- 
eration. 

In  the  passages  thus  far  treated,  we  have  been  inclined  to 
suspect  an  error  in  the  tradition  of  the  text,  where  the  verbal 
accent  has  not  appeared  to  be  explainable  by  ordinary  rules 
and  analogies.  But  there  are  others  in  which  we  seem  to 
/ ,-;  discover  irregular  and  anomalous  applications  of  some  of 

the  rules  previously  stated ;  which  we  can  hardly  regard  as 
errors  of  transcription,  but  which  may  possibly  be,  at  least 
in  part,  errors  of  apprehension  on  the  part  of  those  who  es- 
tablished the  text.  Whether  they  are  to  be  understood  in 
this  way,  or  whether  they  are  true  and  faithfully  recorded 
phenomena  of  the  Vedic  language,  only  of  a  sporadic  char- 
acter, and  not  reducible  to  strict  rule,  may  be  better  deter- 
mined when  we  have  before  us  cases  of  a  like  character  from 
the  other  accented  texts  also. 

We  have,  in  i.  20.  1, 

asmin  yajne  maruto  mrddtd  nah. 

Here  the  verb  is  accented  as  immediately  following  a  voca- 
tive, although  the  latter  does  not  stand  at  the  head  of  a  pdda^ 
and  has  not  itself  an  accent,  as  ought  to  be  the  case,  if  the 
verb  is  to  remain  orthotone. 
A  similar  case  is  found  in  i.  32.  1 ; 


iddrh  jandso  viddtha  mahdd  hrdhma  vadishyati. 

The  reading  fsi^ ,  viddiha^  may  be  looked  upon  as  somewhat 

suspicious  here,  since  the  sense  requires  rather  an  imperative 
form  than  an  indicative,  and  since  the  Atharvan  offers  no 
other  instance  of  a  form  in  the  present  tense  of  either  mood 
from  this  root,  as  conjugated  after  the  manner  of  the  sixth 
conjugation-class.  But  neither  consideration  is  conclusive 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  reading,  for  analogous  forms 
occur  in  the  Ril^,  and  the  substitution  in  the  Veda  of  indica- 
tive for  imperative  is  by  no  means  unknown.  And  the 
passage  is  so  closely  analogous  to  xx.  127.  1, 

iddih  jand  upa  cruta  ndrdgahsd  stavishyate^ 

that  it  seems  better  to  retain  the  word  in  question  unchanged, 

and  not  to  amend  it  to  in^,  viddtham,  as  it  would  be  very 

easy  to  do,  making  a  fair  sense.  The  accenting  of  the  form 
would  be,  as  in  the  preceding  case,  an  irregular  extension  of 
the  rule  for  accenting  after  a  vocative.  We  might  possibly 
understand  ^,  idam^  as  a  mere  exclamation,  translating 
"See  here,  ye  people!  hear!"  which  would  account  for  the 
accent;  but  the  analogy  of  ii.  12.  2,  jtz^^'-  sjwr,  iddin  devdh 

crnuta^  is  against  it,  nor  do  I  know  any  other  instance  of 
such  a  use  of  j^tj  ,  idMm. 

Again,  in  i.  30.  1, 

f^"^^  cfH^>  f#rHHrii^Fn  ^TTTFT  wtTfr 

v'lcve  devd  vdsavo  rdkshate  'mdm  iitd'  '^diiyd  Jdgt'ld  yuydm  asmin, 
the  accenting  of  the  verb  in  the  second  clause  may  be  looked 
upon  as  of  kindred  character  with  that  in  the  two  passages 
last  treated  of.  Yet  the  sentence  may  be  also  so  divided  as 
to  make  the  verb  virtually  the  first  word  in  its  clause ;  if, 
namely,  we  translate  "  All  ye  gods,  ye  Vasus,  guard  this 
person ;  and  ye  Adityas  likewise,  watch  ye  over  him." 
Again,  in  xiv.  2.  42,  we  have 

VOL.   V.  63 


26 

yuvdm  hrahmcme  ^  nicmdnyamdndu  hr'hasjmte  sdkdm  mdrar.ca 
dattdm. 

Hei'e  the  structure  of  the  sentence  appears  to  be  understood 
as  if  the  Avords  between  the  vocative  and  the  verb  in  the 
second  pdda  were  a  kind  of  parenthesis  merely,  so  that  the 
latter  is  accented  as  if  it  immediately  followed  the  former. 
"  Do  ye  two  .  .  .  .  O  Brhaspati,  Indra  also  along  with  you, 
grant." 

Ao-ain.  in  xi.  2.  2, 

cune  h'oshtre  md'  gdrirdni  hdrtam  aliklavehhyah,  etc., 
we  have  the  verb  accented,  as  it  seems  to  me,  by  an  irregu- 
lar application  of  the  rule  allowing  the  verb  to  be  treated 
as  if  directly  construed  with  the  following,  instead  of  with 
the  preceding  object.  Tlie  first  two  words  of  this  passage 
do  indeed  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  verb  as  the  last 
one,  and,  so  far  as  they  alone  were  concerned,  the  verb 
would  be  entitled  to  remain  accented :  but  the  introduction 
of  the  other  two  limiting  words  alters  the  case,  and  should 
render  it  enclitic  again  :  this,  however,  appears  to  have  been 
overlooked,  or  else  deliberately  neglected.  I  do  not  see  any 
other  way  of  accounting  for  the  accent  of  the  verb  here. 
Again,  in  xviii.  4.  54,  we  have 

^T  HTjft  ^  ^  sHIHIJ^HWIHHTPi^  s^T^ 

urjo  hhdgo  yd  imdmjajd'nd'  'gmd'  'nndndmd'dhipatyamjagd'ma. 
The  meaning  and  connection  of  this  passage  are  very  ob- 
scure ;  I  do  not  understand  them  sufhicently  to  be  able  to 
say  whether  the  last  verb  is  correctly  accented,  as  being  of 
the  same  construction  with  the  first,  or  whether  it  should 
rather  be  made  enclitic,  as  belonging  to  an  independent 
clause,  or  whether  its  accentuation  is  to  be  accounted  for  in 
some  other  manner. 

Again,  in  i.  17.  2c,  d,  is  read 

kanishthihd'  ca  t/islithati  lishthdd  id  dhamdnir  mahi'. 


27 

This  seems  to  be  an  incomplete  construction  of  the  kind 
noted  above,  where  an  antithesis  sufficient  to  accent  the 
verb  of  the  former  clause  is  produced  by  the  particles  g-— g-, 
ca-ca,  "both — and."  In  this  case  the  second  clause  con- 
tains, instead  of  ^,  ca,  tpt  ,  iV,  but  the  effect  may  be  looked 
upon  as  being  virtually  the  same. 

A  similar  case,  perhaps,  in  found  in  v.  12.  1, 

d'  ca  vdha  miiramahac  cikitvd'n  tvdm  dutdh  kavir  asi  prdcetdh. 
Here  the  accent^  of  the  first  verb  is  at  any  rate  assured  to  it 
by  the  fact  that  the  corresponding  Rik  passage  (x.  110.  1) 
has  the  same  reading.  We  might  possibly  conjecture,  as 
the  cause  of  it,  such  an  incomplete  antithesis  as  was  sup-  ^^ 
posed  in  the  last  case,  the  completion  of  the  construction 
being  broken  off  by  an  anacolouthon.  Or  we  may  assign  to 
the  particle  g-,  ca^  such  an  office  as  f|;,  hi,  would  fill,  if  used 
in  place  of  it  (compare  vi.  27.  2.  viii.  1.  6.);  "bring  hither, 
etc. ;  [in  that  case,  or  if  thou  so  dost]  thou  art  our  messen- 
ger, etc." 

Again,  in  vii.  35.  Ic,  d, 

iddm  rdshtrdm  piprlii  sd'ubhagdya  vigva  enam  dnu  madantu 
devd'h, 

the  accenting  of  the  verb  in  the  first  pdda  seems  to  be  the 
effect  of  the  assumption  of  an  antithesis  between  the  two 
clauses,  which  is  facilitated,  perhaps,  by  the  more  distinct 
antithetical  construction  of  the  preceding  line  of  the  couplet. 
In  viii.  7.  21,  we  find 

uj  jihidhve  standyaty  abhikrdndaty  oshadMh, 

while  ?rm  cF-Tm,  abhi  krandati,  would  seem  to  be  the  easier 

and  more  natural  reading.     We  cannot  well  assume  here  an 
error  of  transcription,  nor  can  we  plausibly  regard  the  two 
verbal  forms  as  locatives  of  the  present  participle.     I  do 
not  understand  the  reason  of  the  accent  as  it  stands. 
In  xi.  9. 9, 11,  25,  we  have,  three  times  repeated,  the  words 


28 

anitt.reshu  sanukshdyan^ 

Avliich  can  hardly  be  translated  otherwise  than  "may  they 
show  themselves  among  our  enemies ;"  so  that  the  accent 
should  be,  according  to  general  analogies,  Jri»?lTrf<JH,  ^dm  ikslia- 
J  yan.  But  there  is  something  especial  and  unusual  about  this 
phrase,  inserted  each  time,  as  it  i»,  where  it  seems  not  par- 
ticularly in  place ;  and  it  may  ha\'6  some  relation  or  signifi- 
cance which  I  have  not  discovered.  At  present  I  am  com- 
pelled to  pass  by  the  accent  as  problematical. 

There  are  three  passages  in  which  the  word  sjvtsT,  habhuva, 
is  accented,  at  the  end  of  the  line,  in  a  manner  which  is  not 
accounted  for  by  any  general  rule.     They  are  as  follows : 

. . .  •  ^FT  m\mt  ^i^[7TT^^  ^4^ 

svdsa  r'sMndm  hhutakr'tdm  hahhu'va  (vi.  133.  4) ; 

....  WF^4  srt^it  wm 

mddhumari  mddhyam  vinidhdvi  hahhu'va  (viii.  7.  12)  j 

....  5^JR^:  qff  f^i^  ^^ 

ddahdhacakshuh  pari  vicvam  hahhu'va  (xiii.  2.  44). 
In  neither  of  these  cases  is  the  clause  a  dependent  one,  or  a 
member  of  an  antithesis,  nor  am  I  able  to  discover  any  spe- 
cial ground  for  the  accent  of  the  verbs.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  the  verbal  form  here  in  question  stands  in  the 
Atharvan  very  often,  indeed,  in  almost  every  case  in  which 
it  occurs  at  all,  at  the  end  of  a  pdda ;  and  that  in  numerous 
instances  (seventeen  in  all)  it  receives  an  accent  in  that  posi- 
tion ;  not  without  a  distinct  reason,  it  is  true,  in  each  case, 
such  as  is  wanting  in  the  three  passages  now  under  consid- 
eration ;  yet  it  may  be  that  the  frequent  occurrence  of  that 
ending  led  to  the  transference  of  its  accentuation  to  these 
three  passages :  the  tonic  cadence  was  familiar  to  the  ear, 
and  was  accordingly  intruded  upon  a  few  lines  to  which  it 
did  not  properly  belong.  This  explanation,  however,  I  do 
not  regard  as  very  satisfactory,  especially  as  there  are  also 
in  the  ^ext  nineteen  cases  of  the  same  word  standing  unac- 


29 

cented  at  the  end  of  a  pdda;  I  only  offer  it  as  the  most 
plausible  one  -which  I  am  able  to  suggest. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  no  other  general  principle  of  verbal 
accentuation  than  that  first  enunciated  has  been  regarded  as 
established,  or  even  suggested,  by  the  passages  which  we 
have  cited.  Some,  indeed,*  have  been  incliued  to  assume/^/ 
that  the  verb  was  occasionally  suffered  to  retain  its  accent 
when  it  was  sought  to  give  especial  force  to  the  expression, 
or  else  when  a  peculiar  emphasis,  or  distinctive  stress  of 
voice,  was  by  the  sense  required  to  be  laid  upon  the  verb 
itself.  But  although  it  seems  highly  plausible  that  such 
causes  should  sometimes  produce  such  an  effect,  there  is 
almost  no  distinct  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  text  of 
the  Atharvan  that  they  do  produce  it.  It  might  not  be 
quite  impossible  to  force  such  a  explanation  upon  some  of 
the  cases  which  we  have  looked  upon  above  as  problemati- 
cal, while  yet  it  would  be  hard  to  find  in  them  any  reason 
for  accenting  the  verb  which  would  not  equally  apply  to  a 
great  many  passages  in  the  text  which  are  actually  left  to 
be  accented  according  to  the  general  rules.  And  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  require  that  such  a  principle  be  established  upon 
the  evidence  of  a  sufficient  number  of  unambiguous  passages, 
before  we  make  use  of  it  to  explain  doubtful  and  difficult 
cases. 

But  there  are  a  few  passages  in  the  Atharvan,  for  whose 
explanation  we  are  tempted  to  suppose  the  existence  and 
efficiency  in  the  language  of  this  principle  of  energetic  or 
emphatic  accentuation.  Thus  we  have,  in  the  first  place, 
four  verses,  in  which  the  asseverative  particles  ^r^,  aha^  ^^ 
it^  and  f%n=r,  hila^  appear  to  accent  the  verbs  in  connection 
with  which  they  are  taken.     They  are  the  following: 

mdme  'd  aha  hrdtdv  dso  mama  cittdm  upd'yasi  (i.  e.  upa-d'- 
ayasi)  (i.  34,  2) ; 

ahdm  vaddmi  net  tvdrh  sabhd'ydm  aha  tvdin  vdda  (vii.  38.  4) ; 
*  So  Benfey,  VoUst.  Sanskr.  Gr.,  §  129. 


30 

mdme  'd  usas  tvdm  kev.alo  nd'  'nyd'sdm  ktridydg  cand  (vii.  88. 4) ; 

o 
md'm  tt  Jala  tvdm  vdndh  cd'klid'in  mddhwmathn  iva  (i.  34.  4). 
With  regard  to  =Er^,  aha^  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  it  nowhere 
else  in  the  Atharvan  occurs  in  such  connection  as  to  show 
whether  it  possesses  a  general  power  to  accent  the  verb.  But, 
of  six  passages  in  which  it  is  found  in  the  first  Ashtaka  of 

/;■ '  the  Kik,  there  is  but  one  in  which  it  exercises  such  a  power. 
As  for  the  first  line  given,  there  is  room  for  suspecting  an 
antithesis  (certainly  not  less  than  in  xix.  31.  6,  cited  above) ; 
or  the  partial  analogies  of  iii.  25. 5.  vi,  42.  3  may  have  had 
some  influence  upon  its  accentuation.  In  the  second  in- 
stance, a  very  slight  change  of  place  of  the  last  accent-sign 
would  rob  the  verb  of  its  accent.*  The  particle  tht^,  it^  is  of 
very  frequent  occurrence  in  the  text,  but  nowhere  else  influ- 
ences the  accent  of  a  verb,  unless  when  in  composition  with 
g-,  ca,  and  q-,  na^  as  before  explained.  And  for  the  third 
passage  also,  the  analogy  of  the  parallel  passage  vii.  37.  1 
may  not  have  been  without  effect.  The  particle  f%^,  Icila^ 
'  occurs  in  two  other  places  in  the  Atharvan,  viz.  in  iv.  7.  3. 
xviii.  1.  15,  as  also  in  Eik  i,  32.  4,  without  rendering  the 
verb  orthotone :  I  am  not  able  at  present  to  refer  to  any 
other  passages  illustrating  its  use. 

In  these  four  instances,  the  accent  of  the  verbs  certainly 
is  not  of  the  nature  of  what  we  call  emphasis ;  there  ex- 
ists UQ  reason  why  a  distinguishing  stress  of  voice  should 
be  laid  upon  them ;  in  each  case,  some  other  word  than  the 
verb  is  the  emphatic  one.  If  the  verbs  are  indeed  accented 
in  them  in  virtue  of  the  influence  of  the  asseverative  j^arti- 
cles,  it  must  be  as  the  utterance  of  the  whole  clause  takes 

M.  place  with  so  much  additional  force,  that  the  verb  also 
shares  in  it,  to  the  extent  of  having  its  lost  accent  restored 
to  it.  And  yet  it  would  seem  as  if  this  effect  of  increased 
energy  of  enunciation  would  better  express  itself  by  laying 
a  stronger  stress  upon  the  already  accented  sylhibles,  than 

*  And  this  change  has  actually  been  made  iu  the  published  text. 


SI 

by  giving  it  to  others  which  Avere  not  properly  entitled 
to  it. 

There  are,  however,  two  or  three  passages,  in  which  signs 
of  a  real  emphasis  are  perhaps  discoverable.    Thus,  in  ii.  7. 4, 

drdiir  no  md'  tdrin  md'  nas  idrishur  ahhirndtaynh, 
the  second  verb  may  be  accented  because  the  difference  of 
its  form  from  that  of  the  first  struck  the  sense,  and  seemed 
to  call  for  a  special  notice.  Yet  this  is  quite  doubtful,  since 
we  have  seen  hitherto  that,  in  the  case  of  two  correlative 
and  contrasted  5?entences,  the  tendency  of  the  language  was 
to  accent  the  verb  of  the  first,  and  not  of  the  second. 
We  have,  again,  in  iv.  18.  6,  and  repeated  in  v.  31.  11, 

_  V  _  _  O     *N 

ydc  cahd'ra  nd  gacd'Jca  Jcdrtitm, 

"He  who  hath  done,  hath  not  been  able  to  do;"  i.  e.,  "He 
who  hath  attempted,   hath  not  been  able  to  accomplish." 
Here  we  may  plausibly  suppose  the  accent  laid  npon  the 
second  verb  to  be  an  emphatic  one. 
Once  more,  in  xii.  8.  26,  we  read 

5T^:  fTFftFTT  3  ^^  Tof 

quddhd'h  salt's  id!  u  cumbhanta  evd. 

In  this  passage,  as  in  the  last  but  one,  the  verb  is  perhaps 
marked  w'ith  its  independent  accent  in  order  to  indicate 
more  strongly  its  distinction  from  the  preceding  participle. 
Whether  the  evidence  of  these  few  passages,  themselves 
in  part  doubtful,  and  capable  of  a  different  explanation, 
will  be  considered  of  so  much  weight  that  we  may  found 
upon  it  the  assertion,  that  the  Sanskrit  tends  to  accent  the 
verb  in  a  sentence  which  is  meant  to  be  expressed  with  pe- 
culiar energy,  or  where  the  sense  lays  a  peculiar  force  upon 
it,  is  very  questionable.  The  existence  of  such  a  tendency 
must  reniain  doubtful  until  new  support  shall  be  found  for 
it  from  the  other  accented  texts.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  these 
will  furnish  parallel  passages  which  shall  explain  many  of 
those  which  have  occasioned  us  difiiculty,  by  showing  them 
to  be  referable  to  new  principles,  or  to  new  modes  of  action 


S2 

of  the  principles  already  laid  down,  which,  by  the  aid  of  the 
material  furnished  by  the  Atharvan  alone,  we  have  not  dis- 
covered. 

We  have  thus  passed  in  review  all  the  eases  occurring  in 
the  first  nineteen  books  of  the  Atharvan,  in  which  the  ac- 
cent of  ihe  verb  was  determined  by  other  than  the  most 
general  rules,  and  which  accordingly  either  threw  light  upon 
the  theory  of  verbal  accentuation,  or  required  especial  treat- 
ment, as  being  of  an  exceptional  and  anomalous  character. 
I  have  not  included  with  them  the  instances  derivable  from 
the  twentieth  and  concluding  book,  because  the  more  proper 
occasion  for  presenting  these  would  seem  to  be  a  discussion 
of  the  accentual  rules  as  illustrated  by  the  Rig- Veda ;  since 
the  book  in  question  forms  really  no  part  of  the  Atharvan, 
and  is  only  a  collection  of  extracts  from  the  Rik.*  For  the 
sake  of  completeness,  however,  I  append  here  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  passages  in  it  which  are  of  like  character  with 
those  already  given  for  the  other  books. 

Instances  of  a  verb  accented  because  standing  at  the  head 

of  its  own  clause,  the  chvision  of  the  sentence  taking  place 

'PU. />■■'--  "^^'ithin  the  limits  of  a  j^^da^  are  xx.  3.  1 ;  8.  la,  b;  11.  10; 

16.  lid;    27,2;  Sa^  46.3;  54.1;  65.1;  67.5;  91.12; 

92.  8,  16;  95.3;  117.  1;  137.8. 

In  XX.  16.  lie,  we  have  a  case  of  accentuation  of  the 
verb  regarded  as  directly  construed  with  the  following,  in- 
stead of  with  the  preceding  object. 

In  XX.  20.  6,  the  particle  g-,  ca^  indicates  the  conditionality 
of  the  clause,  whose  verb  accordingly  remains  orthotone. 
•*'  In  113.  ij  we  either  have  another  similar  case,  or  the  word 

3iTzi,  uhhayam^  with  which  the  verse  begins,  is  a  general  in- 
troduction to  it,  and  not  speciall}^  connected  with  the  follow- 
ing verb,  which  is  then  left  accented  in  virtue  of  its  initial 
position :  as,  "  Both  these  two  things — let  Indra  hear  our 
voice  ....  and  let  him  come  hither,"  etc. 

The  particle  grfsnT,  Tcuvit^  accents  the  verb  in  xx.  24.  2,  4, 
the  only  instances  of  its  occurrence. 


*  From  this  statement  should  be  excepted,  of  course,  the  few  peculiar  pas- 
sages found  in  connection  with  those  extracts :  yet  they  also  were  not  to  be 
made  use  of  in  an  investigation  like  the  present ;  their  accentuation  in  the 
manuscripts  is  too  corrupt  to  be  of  any  authority ;  the  editors  have  had  to 
•accent  them  anew  in  accordance  with  rules  and  analogies  elsewhere  established. 


.h'ii 


33 

In  XX,  70.  6  is  a  case  of  an  antithesis  with  orr-on",  vdr-vd, 
which,  as  in  xviii.  1.  16,  cited  above  (p.  15),  is  incomplete, 
the  second  verb  being  left  to  be  supplied.  ,^, 

The  passage  xx.  55.  l^ appears  to  be  another  instance  of   ff-'i-fi'/f^ 
an  incompletely  stated  antithesis,  only  the  former  of  the 
two  particles  g-,  ca,  being  expressed.     It  may  be  compared 
•with  i.  17.  2c,  d,  and  v.  12.  1  (cited  on  pages  26  and  27). 

A  distinct  antithesis  is  exhibited  in  xx.  56.  3d;  "  Whom, 
on  the  one  hand,  wilt  thou  slay?  whom,  on  the  other,  set 
in  the  midst  of  wealth  ?"  and  the  usual  effect  of  such  a  con- 
struction is  seen  in  the  accenting  of  the  former  verb. 

In  XX.  16.  ll'd,]  the  former  of  the  two  verbs  is  accented 
by  the  action  of  the  same  principle.     In  xx.  8. 1  c ;  89.  Sf  we  '  ,.    x.  9^, 
have  two  cases  closely  akin  with  v.  18.  4  (see  above,  p.  21), 
the  correctness  of  the  accentuation  in  which  passage  may  be 
looked  upon  as  clearly  established  by  their  analogy. 

In  XX.  67.  7d,  we  have  a  case  of  the  irregular  accenting 
of  a  verb  after  a  vocative,  in  a  like  situation  as  in  i.  20.  1 
(cited  above,  p.  24). 

In  the  passage  xx.  5.  5, 

e  ^hi  "m  asyd  drdvd  piha. 

"Come  hither  now,  of  this  [Soma],  run,  drink,"  the  intro- 
duction of  2^,  drava,  in  parenthesis,  between  fqsr,  piha,  and 
its  object,  has  so  broken  the  continuity  of  the  sentence  that 
the  latter  verb  can  no  longer  be  made  enclitic,  but  is  suffered 
to  retain  an  independent  accent. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  that  portion  of  the  Rik  text  (about 
a  thirteenth  part  of  the  whole)  of  which  the  concluding 
book  of  the  Atharvan  is  composed,  there  are  no  phenomena 
of  verbal  accentuation  inconsistent  with  the  rules  which  have 
been  given  above,  nor  any  that  require  other  principles  for 
their  explanation.  Whether,  in  the  whole  body  of  the  Rik, 
phenomena  of  a  different  character  may  be  found,  must  re- 
main to  be  decided  by  examination.  Considering  the  greater 
amount  of  material  which  the  older  Veda  presents,  as  well 
as  the  superior  accuracy  of  its  text  as  fixed  by  tradition,  its 
speedy  examination  with  a  view  to  this  subject  is  greatly  to 
be  desired,  in  order  to  the  full  elucidation  of  the  latter. 

5 


/> 


r 


V 


UNIVERSITY  OF  tahf^^"^'*    ' 


University  o1  California 

SOUTHERN  ^^^^Z^),:^S^^''^:^^ZSS 

^°^  ""^^elur^r-terto  the  iibrary 
from  whicii  it  was  borrowed. 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Sfeckton,  Calif. 


PK    481  •       V^6i 


3  1 


58  01239  743 


1 

■    1 

-X 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  356  514    o 


University 

Southeri 

Librarj 


